Posts by Doug Mason

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

Hi Julia,

I am a graduate of the University of Hard Knocks from the Faculty of Life (coming up for my 73rd bday).

Doug

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

Ding,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I do not disagree with you. On my first page, I tried to point out that JWs are confronted at the thought of being cut off from friends and family. I also said that JWs accept whatever the GB says because of who the GB claims to be, regardless of what it is saying. The GB demands total unquestioning loyalty to whatever is the current Truth. Usually with propaganda, lies are continually repeated until they are accepted as truth.

In my short piece, I say that the claim of "who the GB claims to be" is built on a suspect foundation, and people have to ask themselves whether they are going to entrust their lives and the lives of their loved ones to the totalitarian vagaries of that group of men. That is a decision each person needs to make: is the GB's claim to have the same authority as the body at Acts 15 founded on solid unshakeable grounds? I say that the GB rests on the flimsiest foundation.

I am fully aware of the challenges posed by my Study. I deliberately kept it focused, but many issues flow from it. As I wrote before, at Acts 15, James - the leader of the Jerusalem party (of Jews) - is said to have declared that blood was off-limits. However, when Paul was writing a few years after going to see James in Jerusalem, Paul insisted that followers had to "share" or "participate" in Jesus' blood. (1 Cor 10:16) In John's gospel, when Jesus said the same thing (not at any "Last Supper") many Jews were so affronted at the thought of drinking blood that they stopped associating with Jesus. But, according to John, Jesus commanded it.

We know that Paul initiated the "Last Supper" story - he explicitly says it came to him from a vision, therefore not from a human source - so we need to see it in the context of his opposition to the Jerusalem party. Paul's spread his ideas to the world; Jerusalem (under James, not Peter) was little more than a Jewish outcrop. The bulk of the NT comes from Paul and his disciples.

As "Cha Ching" says, I am interested in stimulating minds. I am not asking people to agree with all that I say, but if I help open up thinking and people then make up their own minds and are prepared to investigate with courage, then I am content.

Doug

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

prologos,

There are, as you rightly point out, many other elephants. As you say, questions are therefore raised about the accuracy or otherwise of other accounts in Acts. I only hinted at these when I commented on the biased objectives of the writers of Acts.

I shall think further on addressing the broader issue. With this Study, of course, I needed to confine the scope.

Have you read the other books of Acts that were circulating at the same time but did not make it into the NT canon?

I am not aware of any unity between Antioch and Jerusalem at any stage. I don't recall the page number, but "Crisis of Conscience" recalls a speech by Fred Franz about the Antioch and Jerusalem; there used to be a recording of that speech "somewhere" on YouTube. I have transcripts of parts of that speech on my computer which I could email you.

I see nothing in Paul's genuine writings that suggests any unity with Jerusalem. At one stage I was tempted to show that while the Acts 15 decree wrote about staying away from blood, Paul insisted that his followers drink Jesus' blood (1 Corinthians 11:23ff). And he said that he received that instruction directly (in a vision) from Jesus - thereby bypassing Jerusalem.

In a direct answer to your question regarding Stephen and Paul's involvement - let's say there is doubt. Another example is the differences between the missionary journeys and the accounts of them as given by Paul. Many Bible scholars disregard Acts.

The GB's claim to fame fades without Acts.

Doug

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

EdenOne,

Thank you for your assessment.

If you wish, let me know where I have problems.

Doug

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

If reasoning with a Jehovah’s Witness on the Watchtower Society’s interpretations of the Kingdom of God, Parousia, the Cross, Blood, and so on is unlikely to break the WTS’s mental stranglehold, what then is its “Achilles’ Heel”?

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Watchtower_s_Achilles__Heel.pdf

Doug

10

"THE WATCH TOWER" 1865 - Volume 1 - Downloadable PDF 417 pages

by jwleaks in

the watch tower 1865, published by j.f.

shaw & co., for the proprietors of "the watch tower", 158 fleet street, london.

sold at all booksellers and railway book stores during the mid to late 1860's.. this volume of the watch tower was first published on march 29, 1865, for the benefit of learned members of the anglican church.

Doug Mason

CTR called it "Zion's Watchtower" because he envisaged that the Zionists would take control of a peaceful world in 1914. The other part of his title "Herald of Christ's Pressnce" referred to his 1874 "parousia".

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

The WTS could justify any action in changing the list of books that make up the NT Canon (and perhaps the OT?). It says that the Church apostatised as soon as the last Apostle died, by the end of the 1st century (100 CE).

The WTS claims to be assigned the authority given to the original Apostles, so it should claim superiority over the 4th century ("apostate") Trinitarians who were the first to provide the present list of writings. This is the list that the WTS accepts as Holy Scripture. Why?

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

Acts is a late writing (possible date 125 CE) designed to provide a picture that smooths over differences in the schism between the Antioch church under Paul and the Jerusalem Church under James. It is historically inaccurate and it contradicts Paul's accounts. For example, scholars are incapable of reconciling Paul with the account at Acts 15 - which is a disaster for the WTS and its theoretical first century "governing body". Or the contrast between Acts' "Damascus Road" story againts Paul's account, where he says in Galatians that he was already in Damascus arguing against the followers of Jesus and that he left the place for 3 years after his confrontation there. Consider also the structure of Acts (Peter then Paul). Acts is commonly referred to as "religious fiction".

I am certain there are numerous presentations on the www giving both sides of the argument. The fact they are there shows this is an issue of concern. Which side you accept is yours to make. I have shown you mine. The point I make is that this is the kind of issue the NWT should address, and do so objectively.

The Book of Enoch underlies some of NT writings; at one stage it was part of the Canon and it is still part of the Ethiopic Bible. I write the following in my Study at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf

"The book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 14-15. Verbal echoes are found in Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, Thessalonians, 1 Peter and Revelation, and probably in other books. It exercised a greater influence on the New Testament than all the other non-canonical books together. It was considered sacred by Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria; and it is found in the Ethiopic version as a part of the Bible."

See my study and the reason I wrote that.

Do you see the reason I say such things are far more critical than arguing about a single word here or there?

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

It seems to me, and I am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" NWT - is myopic and it misses the real issues.

I have no problems with improving readabilty; I have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the Bible. Indeed, I wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the Christain populace and produce a totally new Bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as Acts), altering the sequence of books (Paul first), even inserting some (the Book of Enoch comes to mind, for example). In other words, to address the canon.

There is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context. Not only the textual context of a word or passage, but the human context - the contemporary history at the moment a writing was composed and when it was edited and re-edited, changed and corrupted. I know this is Higher Criticism, which the WTS says it rejects - except for the following example on the subject of exegesis:

"However, if a person ignored the context and directly applied the text to worldly conflicts, limiting it to that, he would lose the whole point of the apostle Paul's argument. He would then not really be letting the Bible speak. Besides the written context, a person should keep in mind the time period involved. This can prevent one from drawing wrong conclusions" (WT, Oct 1,1976, page 586).

As I am wont to occasionally note: "a text without a context is a pretext".

Douhg

37

My interest in this revised NWT

by Doug Mason in

the biases of the earlier iteration of the nwt have been known and discussed from the appearance of the first appearance in 1950, and i assume the revised edition will be affected by the same prejudicial biases.

one can cynically subscribe to the view that this is a financial bonanza and possibly a distraction from the imminent centenary of that distant significant date.. my interest will be to see how the impact of this revision evolves, particularly in the area of the wts's support material and on the impact its release will have on witnesses.

some preliminary thoughts are:.

Doug Mason

Thanks for your help. From what I have seen so far, I am underwhelmed. These changes could have been addressed by a simple leaflet.

Do these changes achieve anything other than clarify one person's beefs with the way Franz expressed himself at certain points, especially in view of the changes they have made since he went?

Am I being cynical, but can anyone provide a realistic estimate of the gross revenue?

Would they have weighed up the impact on some JWs, or would they have been considered collateral damage for the good of the WTS's coffers?

It's almost Monday in USA, so I look forward to being able to see what's up.

JWs would be staggered if they had the choice of translations that are available to those outside the WTS's grasp.

Doug